Political Topics I Care About

Why is post-encouragement discouragement futile?

The political topics I actually spend my thinking on, and where I've written about each.

This is a living list. It's here so you know where I'm actually spending my thinking, and so I can point at it instead of re-explaining myself. For how I approach politics in general rather than any single topic, read My Practical Politics Is Everything But Neutral.

The lists are subdivided by personal beliefs, topics I care about, and topics I'm still learning. You can also read more of me being wrong, asking questions, and discussing on Reddit at u/pywang and ToYourCredit.

Personal Beliefs

Liberal democracies are the best for individual liberty but fragile and based on the idealism of its politicians.
Energy: becoming oil independent through significant reduction in usage such as consumer electric vehicles. Increasing electricity for a more productive society through nuclear energy and other renewables without damaging the environment through landfills and overusage of space.
Anti-war from an economic and moral perspective unless the cost of not waging it is extreme unhappiness, illiberalism, loss of liberty, and tons more deaths, i.e. Iran. But for the most part, anti-war.
Politicians should be smarter: I think the modern politician is far more representative in the U.S. compared to most countries because the representatives are actual residents of the districts or states they represent. However, the original intent for politicians in America was for them to be educated. There is an intellectual elitism in the American left that believes college educated individuals would naturally be more leftist and that their policies are better, but simply having that degree does not make them more knowledgeable on political issues and solutions. Because of who is now entering politics, which over the last 80 years has been far more charismatic than earlier American politicians, I think the overall intellectualism, particularly in political theory, but also avoidance of populism has decreased. My favorite modern politician is Barack Obama. I've found interviews of him talking about the rise of China and him being anti-woke and purity tests dating back to 2019. He's made mistakes that I've criticized on online forums (tl;dr some of them: foreign (in)action in the Middle East, particularly the Arab Spring, starting to write flurries of executive orders that Trump continued in his first term and went wild in his second). But he was the best politician because he was practical while remaining ideological. Politics is slow moving, and people never appreciate that. It's why I say being a president is just a job. It's an honor to be one, but it's just a job. Or at least it's supposed to be with minimal corruption:/ Additionally, Obama staffed people who understood the nuance, but Mayor Mamdani is completing tasks that make him charismatic and to the Democratic base successful when his departments are also executing policies that pushes NYC's problems down the road like rent control. I still think Mamdani is a good, charismatic politician, but he chose people who are too ideological. President Trump has the same problem, though he doesn't mind it as much (probably because he doesn't care about America's long term future and is devoid of political theory and Democratic ideals, though I do believe in Susie Wiles when she says Trump is just trolling the left that he'll stay for a third term). President Trump's problem is that he has coalesced multiple factions, and people in those factions are now pushing their own agendas. The Christian faction was shunned out by President Reagan (and overseas, by Lee Kwan Yew), but it was necessary for Trump to install Christians who use their newfound power to push their beliefs against the public or take advantage of their base. Trump doesn't care about Christianity, and Christians know that. Mamdani is in the same position with executives installing rent control, which was a campaign promise, but again is doing harm against NYC. Obama hired the right talent that were laser focused on what needed to get done.
Privacy and data ownership: I've written a few blogs on it and made a side project called SproutOS that deals with it. From a political perspective, that means ensuring the protection of individuals from an overpowered government that is finally (and now) put in the wrong hands that abuse the power outside of democratic ideals.
Truth seek: this is a right-wing term, but it shouldn't be. It should be used by everyone to discover nuance. Of course, one can never believe everyone is willing to do the research and discover nuance. Understanding trade offs should be vital to those that are executing.
Anti-woke and big tent politics: stop putting purity tests on everyone. Be tolerable of different peoples' beliefs and ethics. Society changes slowly. Socially shunning people turned into the biggest populist backlash because there was shunning of everything. I walked into college and got shunned for saying particular words or ideas. Thankfully, having a communist best friend at the time was great because he was a math major, so he had all the time in the world to talk. The purity tests are what made Democrats unlikable which costed them several election cycles and losing factions i.e. big tent politics. When Ezra Klein got cancelled for wanting big tent politics, it was crazy. Now, AOC is walking back Woke 1.0... so I guess times are shifting. I like how one person put it: left wing McCarthyism.
The power of Congress and Electoral College: the legislative branch should restore its power against the executive in fear of Unitary Executive Theory. Both parties want it, and the media craves it, which means the common person craves it, too, because we love stories, heroes (especially if they're charismatic), and their journeys. American political theory is very interesting, and I love it. I think it's the perfect federal system for America given its history and even to this day nothing has really changed in nature. Leftists who hate the Electoral College and want everyone required to vote say that because it would mean Democrats would always win, but the point of representation is that people are representatives. Even during the founding of the country, people knew certain states would have too much leverage and too large of a population that would crush other states' representation. I started re-reading the Federalist Papers, and to think a bicameral legislature and Electoral College was not intended is dumb. The degree of influence may have changed (given all states ended up just voting via popular vote), and the Senate's filibuster gave too much power to the Senate, we have from an underlying theory an amazing political system compared to, say, a parliamentary system.
DEI to a certain extent

Topics I care about

Reshoring jobs and protectionism in the fast paced global economy. I'm particularly inspired by Ohio (though they had a perfect opportunity to reshore given their monopsonistic towns), but, as a Michigander, I'm woefully disappointed by the state government in their inability to attract Americans back to Michigan. As I mentioned before, politicians need to be smarter. I care deeply about my home state and wish it could be revitalized, but country comes first. As the population in Michigan continues to age on average, the possibility of revitalization potential shrinks unless healthcare spurs economic growth which is possible; in which case, Michigan would need to invest in making it attractive cities because that's what the youth cares about, which then brings jobs.
Universal healthcare: I do think universal healthcare is important, but it doesn't mean we have to adopt a single-payer system to do it. I'm a big advocate for incremental improvements. Slowly but surely, because that's just how politics was designed in America.
Environmentalism, particularly protection of nature, the nuance of environmentalism and human productivity (and solutions to make both work out), the Great Lakes, forests, and national parks. I'm not a big hiker, but I appreciate being in nature, being surrounded by animals, letting animals bask in private, and having the privacy through being in forests / being connected to nature. Funny story: my dad enjoys the suburbs, and I have more and more friends love suburban living. My dad grew up on a tiny farm in China, and moved to the city in his adulthood. He hated the city, not just because of the sectionalism in China (that persists even today regarding white skin vs. tan skin which is the opposite of America), but because he is kind of a walking faux pas city-wise. There is a dichotomy between urbanists who are usually political and just casual people who want the space, tranquility, low cost of living, low stress, and low pollution of a suburb.
The power of the individual: my favorite entertainment are Dune, both cinematic and book series, and Andor. I do think people need to struggle, but not suffer. I've written about this in a blog. However, what I haven't written about but is widely discussed is Dune's thinking on the power of an individual. Not just in the struggle, but politically as well with the Messiah figure, using the Voice in real life (metaphorically), etc. But religion will always be a thing. It won't ever die, and I think tolerance of differences should be learned.
Appreciation of differences and selfishness: I'm a fan of YIMBYism but also rent control for certain zones of a city and for certain individuals to different extents, mostly elderly residents. I think there should be more understanding of nuance in issues. I think America is the best definition of tolerance of differences, though I'm worried about the rise of left wing violence as right wing violence has on long-term stayed still.
Urbanism: I can understand the appeal and various factors of the appeal of suburbia. I personally like dense cities because (the analogy of gluten complexity incoming) it ensures ideas are flowed very quickly, gathers talent in a dense place, and highly efficient spaces. That said, I'm not anti-car, though cars should be EVs now (some things can't like a fighter jet, rocket, planes, huge industrial trucks, etc.). Cars have their place in the world.
Getting political operatives with non-truth-seeking motives out: money in politics and rich people entering politics has been a thing forever. Secretary of State and democratic gubernatorial nominee in Michigan Jocelyn Benson is one of them, setting up her life to be the perfect spitting image of a politician. I met someone whose brother was the Harvard commencement speaker (and donors banned him from giving the HLS comment address too) who moved to Detroit to also set up a perfect story like being a public defender in preparation for entering politics. Both are from wealthy families, neither are from Michigan. It's the Obama playbook, but the playbook is decades old now. To be honest, I don't have that big of a problem with it if they live there long enough. Though I feel a patriotic sense to my home state, if they get the right policies in, then sure. However, I feel uncomfortable whenever politicians who advocate for certain policies loudly are not in the gray area. And that's what I see with the DSA and Republican Party. Everyone is a conservative to some degree; xenophobia is an example of this, and it's found in NYC (i.e. NYC transplants) and SF (i.e. tech companies). So I get it for conservatives because people don't like change because the future is unknown. However, I have a problem with folks who push an ideology without practical, historical within reasonable context, or academic backing, and this lack of nuance is the problem with the DSA when they push their narrative. Worse, DSA members are forcing people to believe that to accomplish their goals, they need to make all of America run under the socialist system. This to me is sinister. I have my thoughts on capitalism, reforms, and socialism from an innovation standpoint, and I've written about it before if you'd like to read.
Anti-drug, pro health: being health is tough. It requires a good mindset, can be expensive food wise and tastes horrible depending on your goal, and requires the time to maintain that health. Drugs have caused tons of problems, even safe drugs that people want to legalize such as marijuana.

Topics I'm still learning about and are usually controversial

A quick list of things I'm still learning but haven't written a blog about my thoughts yet:

Policy on immigration and fertility rate, and the unknown potential and degree of economic consequences society will burden for falling rates of either (skilled or unskilled regarding immigrants and education levels through culture and funding for children in America)
Marxism: I'm politically intrigued in it. All of Marx's economic theories and political predictions failed, but the DSA is starting to thrive, so I've started reading into what the modern democratic socialist thinks should happen. I'm willing in the future to pay for a small socialist America city just to see if things would work out if the rest of the world is capitalist. However, a lot of the microeconomics don't work. The DSA
Military spending, economics of war, and the degree of necessity to ensure global trade is peaceful.
Land, Georgism, landlording (a la pied a terre tax in NYC), etc.

Market power and monopolization

Concentration is the thread running through most of what I write. Private markets are the right default, but past a certain size, capital stops competing and starts distorting: private equity rolling up mom-and-pop businesses, undercutting until the small competitor is gone, and platforms that resist change because the status quo pays them. See Power Imbalance and Leverage from Money's Perspective, Tackling Monopolies, and Most people never learn enough to deserve opinion.

Industrial policy and manufacturing

Whether a nation should make things, and which things. My position is high-value manufacturing, not assembly lines: chips and solar showed it can work when the talent base and product value line up. See Should Manufacturing be Restored in America.

Great power politics and defense

Balance as the stabilizing force in international relations, and what the actual constraints on military power look like once you follow the politics rather than the hardware. See Newton's Third Law for International Politics and How America's Munitions Stockpile was Depleted.

Who pays for innovation

Public versus private funding, and what each is actually good at. Military budgets get credit for innovation mostly because they're concentrated; science funding is spread thin enough that breakthroughs get starved. See Military vs. Science Funding.

Europe's trajectory

Whether Europe's slower growth is regulation, cultural choice, or both, and what it costs a bloc to opt out of competing. See Is Europe Poor or is Relaxation a Choice?.

Opportunity, pipelines, and mobility

Most of what looks like merit is access to a funnel someone else told you about. Who gets into those funnels, and who never hears they exist, is a political question. See Why Pipelines Matter in Life and Rise of Women.

AI, labor, and what the panic is actually about

Less about AGI risk and more about who captures the gains, what gets built with the capital, and which fears are real versus marketed. See AGI Is Pointless.